Answer :
The legal standard for conducting surveillance and deciding if a search or seizure is constitutional is probable cause, which necessitates a reasonable belief that a crime may have been committed or that evidence of a crime exists. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard allowing brief 'stop and frisk' activities. Hence, option A) Probable Cause is the correct answer.
The legal standard for conducting surveillance and generally deciding whether a search or seizure is constitutional is probable cause. Probable cause implies that there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or that evidence of a crime is present in the place to be searched. This concept is central to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
When it comes to probable cause, law enforcement officers must demonstrate to a judge that there is sufficient evidence to support the issuance of a warrant or to conduct a search in exigent circumstances. On the other hand, reasonable suspicion is a lower standard that allows officers to perform a brief 'stop and frisk' based on the notion that criminal activity is afoot, as established in the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio (1968).
Courts have also made determinations regarding surveillance and searches without warrants, setting certain precedents. For instance, the courts have found that police do not generally need a warrant to search the passenger compartment of a car or search people at the international borders of the United States. Hence, option A) Probable Cause is the correct answer.
